F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 8,896
- Reaction score
- 7,672
Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail
Longtime lurker. I'm active on Railroad.net (hence the rail focus). Nice to exercise some alternative to the moderator police state on the RRnet MBTA forum for a change.
Expressing vs. local stops wouldn't really solve the problem because serving 2 branches still hurts the headways out to Taunton and forces a more limited schedule on the part of the line where 80% of the ridership is. Remember, they have to do single-track on the original build to pass muster with the NIMBY's and Army Corps of Engineers, then infill double-track later when they're operating for a few years. I would rather let that double-track be tied into Phase II extension from Taunton to the coast so the schedules aren't constrained from Day 1. It's not fully incremental. Go to Taunton/140/24 on the single track for Phase I, then build the double-tracking and everything to the FR/NB terminals in a package so the second leg goes online at full capacity from first revenue train past Taunton.
Also, whether they express or not past Taunton it's the operating mileage of going so far out-of-district that ramps up operating cost to untenable levels. If the latest ridership estimates only show 800 daily paying customers south of Taunton split between 2 branches, that's not even going to come close to covering fuel, maintenance, and crew wage costs on the trainsets themselves over just that subset of running mileage. Not when you have to run two separate trains to cover each branch, and they're only picking up 400 people each. Nevermind all of the track, station, schedule, other labor, and other considerable costs that go with operating a line. This is primary reason why it doesn't make sense in one fell swoop. They can get revenue return par for the average CR line to Taunton, but it's pure operating $$$ drain past there.
They've got to get that south-of-Taunton starter ridership much higher, probably 1500+ total for Day 1 service and a more aggressive growth curve in the first decade so the individual branches reliably contribute 1000+ riders each the first few years. That's minimum upside they'd need to offset a steeper-than-usual operating loss for first 10-15 years to a speculative-growth region. Best way to do that is to do some "route priming" before trains ever go all the way down, with Phase I to Taunton and easy, well-coordinated bus connections from FR and NB for 10 years. And promise that it's going to beget a sure Phase II if the transfer ridership doesn't utterly fail minimum expectations. Easier, less monolithic and daunting, more built-in safety valves if the ridership growth outside the 495 belt is a complete flop at the 10-15 year range.
'Nother thing to consider re: ridership. . .
The Fall River line keeps going into Rhode Island, and used to terminate at Newport before the Sakonnet River rail bridge was torn down after being damaged by a barge hit. The tracks are still active on Aquidneck Island for the Newport Dinner Train with RIDOT paying to maintain the tracks, and tracks from Fall River to Tiverton are out-of-service but not abandoned (gas tank farm straddling the state line was a recent freight customer and potential reactivated customer). Each state owns the trackage on each side of the border. RIDOT preserved the bridge approaches when it rebuilt the adjacent highway bridge, and did a study about improving rail service on the island to more general-purpose seasonal transit than just the Dinner Train.
Study also included connecting service to Fall River should the MBTA go there. Initially with bus shuttle onto the edge of the island connecting to upgraded train back and forth on the island. Later with a rebuilt bridge and thru service to FR. As with the Providence line, every MBTA route mile across state lines is paid in-full by the other state. The T can pretty much run as far as RIDOT wants it to go, which is how the T.F. Green/Wickford Junction extension is happening. If the T ever decided to run a handful of thru trains to Newport it would be paid for by RI all the same. Summer seasonal service would definitely offer a ridership pipeline to boost the Fall River branch and make it more sustainable, maybe enough to merit some eventual limited rush hour runs year-round.
However, RI's banking money for its South County commuter rail from Providence to Westerly on the NEC first. That's supposed to be up and running around 2020. So you're looking at another 10 years regardless before they can turn their attention to going all-in on as a trailer to the Fall River branch. So why not hold Phase II until they're ready to play? RIDOT's signaled a "yes, absolutely" that they want in with at-minimum that starter shuttle bus, so T's got a lot to gain by holding a Phase II until RI can funnel some mild ridership reinforcements their way.
Longtime lurker. I'm active on Railroad.net (hence the rail focus). Nice to exercise some alternative to the moderator police state on the RRnet MBTA forum for a change.
Expressing vs. local stops wouldn't really solve the problem because serving 2 branches still hurts the headways out to Taunton and forces a more limited schedule on the part of the line where 80% of the ridership is. Remember, they have to do single-track on the original build to pass muster with the NIMBY's and Army Corps of Engineers, then infill double-track later when they're operating for a few years. I would rather let that double-track be tied into Phase II extension from Taunton to the coast so the schedules aren't constrained from Day 1. It's not fully incremental. Go to Taunton/140/24 on the single track for Phase I, then build the double-tracking and everything to the FR/NB terminals in a package so the second leg goes online at full capacity from first revenue train past Taunton.
Also, whether they express or not past Taunton it's the operating mileage of going so far out-of-district that ramps up operating cost to untenable levels. If the latest ridership estimates only show 800 daily paying customers south of Taunton split between 2 branches, that's not even going to come close to covering fuel, maintenance, and crew wage costs on the trainsets themselves over just that subset of running mileage. Not when you have to run two separate trains to cover each branch, and they're only picking up 400 people each. Nevermind all of the track, station, schedule, other labor, and other considerable costs that go with operating a line. This is primary reason why it doesn't make sense in one fell swoop. They can get revenue return par for the average CR line to Taunton, but it's pure operating $$$ drain past there.
They've got to get that south-of-Taunton starter ridership much higher, probably 1500+ total for Day 1 service and a more aggressive growth curve in the first decade so the individual branches reliably contribute 1000+ riders each the first few years. That's minimum upside they'd need to offset a steeper-than-usual operating loss for first 10-15 years to a speculative-growth region. Best way to do that is to do some "route priming" before trains ever go all the way down, with Phase I to Taunton and easy, well-coordinated bus connections from FR and NB for 10 years. And promise that it's going to beget a sure Phase II if the transfer ridership doesn't utterly fail minimum expectations. Easier, less monolithic and daunting, more built-in safety valves if the ridership growth outside the 495 belt is a complete flop at the 10-15 year range.
'Nother thing to consider re: ridership. . .
The Fall River line keeps going into Rhode Island, and used to terminate at Newport before the Sakonnet River rail bridge was torn down after being damaged by a barge hit. The tracks are still active on Aquidneck Island for the Newport Dinner Train with RIDOT paying to maintain the tracks, and tracks from Fall River to Tiverton are out-of-service but not abandoned (gas tank farm straddling the state line was a recent freight customer and potential reactivated customer). Each state owns the trackage on each side of the border. RIDOT preserved the bridge approaches when it rebuilt the adjacent highway bridge, and did a study about improving rail service on the island to more general-purpose seasonal transit than just the Dinner Train.
Study also included connecting service to Fall River should the MBTA go there. Initially with bus shuttle onto the edge of the island connecting to upgraded train back and forth on the island. Later with a rebuilt bridge and thru service to FR. As with the Providence line, every MBTA route mile across state lines is paid in-full by the other state. The T can pretty much run as far as RIDOT wants it to go, which is how the T.F. Green/Wickford Junction extension is happening. If the T ever decided to run a handful of thru trains to Newport it would be paid for by RI all the same. Summer seasonal service would definitely offer a ridership pipeline to boost the Fall River branch and make it more sustainable, maybe enough to merit some eventual limited rush hour runs year-round.
However, RI's banking money for its South County commuter rail from Providence to Westerly on the NEC first. That's supposed to be up and running around 2020. So you're looking at another 10 years regardless before they can turn their attention to going all-in on as a trailer to the Fall River branch. So why not hold Phase II until they're ready to play? RIDOT's signaled a "yes, absolutely" that they want in with at-minimum that starter shuttle bus, so T's got a lot to gain by holding a Phase II until RI can funnel some mild ridership reinforcements their way.
